Meta

Quote note (#335)

We live in an increasingly volatile and primal era, in which history is speeding up and liberal democracy is weakening. As Vladimir Lenin wrote, “In some decades, nothing happens; in some weeks, decades happen.” Get ready for the creative destruction of public institutions, something every society periodically requires to clear out what is obsolete, ossified and dysfunctional — and to tilt the playing field of wealth and power away from the old and back to the young. Forests need periodic fires; rivers need periodic floods. Societies, too. That’s the price we must pay for a new golden age. […] If we look at the broader rhythms of history, we have reason to be heartened, not discouraged, by these trends. Anglo-American history over the past several centuries has experienced civic crises in a fairly regular cycle, about every 80 or 90 years, or roughly the length of a long human life. This pattern reveals itself in the intervals separating the colonial Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression and World War II. Fast-forward the length of a long human life from the 1930s, and we end up where we are today.

Most ominously:

Despite a new tilt toward isolationism, the United States could find itself at war. I certainly do not hope for war. I simply make a sobering observation: Every total war in U.S. history has occurred during a Fourth Turning, and no Fourth Turning has yet unfolded without one.

[Brett Stevens] “The West is in a genetic crisis more than a political one. We reversed Darwinism and now we live on planet retard.”

{AK}: You really think there is a ‘Darwinism’ that can be ‘reversed’?
‘Natural selection’ and ‘adaption’, are not mechanisms obliged to conform to anthropic evaluations of ‘intelligence’. The logic of environmental adaptation does not rest on any single variable, or set of variables, or indeed, any teleological fixation at all.
The fact of ‘designed adaptation’; or ‘breeding’; or the possibility of teleology; doesn’t actually alter that, and is no more than the adaptive design, of adaptation, to a teleological desire, ‘itself’ an adaptation. Thus, this extra-libidinal aspect and working of adaptation, exceeds any specific teleological desire, and any schema of evaluation it might propose.
So, essentially, the claim that ‘Darwinism is reversed’, is contingent on a particular teleological desire and evaluation, moreover, one that shows itself as a knee-jerk expediency, with no greater understanding of the processes its cites, than its own insular utility.
It’s no more than another dogmatic circuit around the closed economy of an unquestioned desire. A narcissistic reflection, that doesn’t really go anywhere, or do anything, except relentlessly announce its stupid obstinacy.
But that’s Neoreaction!
The clever version of the ‘All-Trite’!
lol

Stevens was not making a statement about Darwinian teleology. He was simply using Darwin as a metaphor (poorly chosen, i grant you) for the indolent disposition of the overly domesticated middle and upper classes. (Good times create weak men, etc.).

Your analyses are generally trite in this way—you overlook the obvious larger point someone is making, zero in like Derrida on something insignificant, then over-analyze your chosen phrase or clause with watered-down Freudianisms.

[Seth Largo] “Stevens was not making a statement about Darwinian teleology.

{AK}: He made a point about ‘reversed Darwinism’. To suggest that Darwinism can be ‘reversed’, is to necessarily suggest a fixed teleology capable of being reversed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Seth Largo] “He was simply using Darwin as a metaphor (poorly chosen, i grant you) for the indolent disposition of the overly domesticated middle and upper classes. (Good times create weak men, etc.).”

{AK}: Without a fixed teleological conception, the notion of an “indolent disposition” has no critical purchase. Such a disposition, depending on teleological conception, could equally well be an ‘evolutionary strategy’, just as well as any other disposition. It’s ‘efficacy’, would be contingent on the characterisation of results, and on the characterisation of a teleological schema.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Seth Largo] “Your analyses are generally trite in this way—you overlook the obvious larger point someone is making, zero in like Derrida on something insignificant, then over-analyze your chosen phrase or clause with watered-down Freudianisms.”

{AK}: I generally hint; I don’t spell everything out; I guess I just assume that the interrelational architectonic between ‘points’ is obvious.

All of these, are necessarily predicated on a fixed teleological conception; one, moreover, as I’ve suggested above, “that shows itself as a knee-jerk expediency, with no greater understanding of the processes its cites, than its own insular utility.
It’s no more than another dogmatic circuit around the closed economy of an unquestioned desire. A narcissistic reflection, that doesn’t really go anywhere, or do anything, except relentlessly announce its stupid obstinacy.
But that’s Neoreaction!
The clever version of the ‘All-Trite’!
lol”

If the USA doesn’t innovate, it falls into the century long management of U.S. decline that is on China’s task list. China is not interested in war, it doesn’t need to be. It’s the USA, which is a dangerous, global nutcase. Trump’s protectionism isn’t going to work; it’s a feel-good message that’s destined to fail. Not because of him particularly, or even Bannon, but because of the delusional nature of the population, who scare themselves silly over every statistic and graph. Because of the default culture of selfishness, distrust, and paranoia, that afflicts every grouping. It’s really sad.

“Because of the default culture of selfishness, distrust, and paranoia, that afflicts every grouping.”

Such is humanity and so has it always been. You can no more design a society around radical heterogeneity than you can make protectionism work in the 21st century capital market. Your post showcases the mirror images of American delusion. On the one hand you are aware that factionalism is your doom. On the other hand, you somehow disbelieve that factionalism is unnatural. You are so completely deracinated and divorced from reality that you could never understand the mind of an ethnically conscious Han in China.

[M.G. Zhang] “Such is humanity and so has it always been. You can no more design a society around radical heterogeneity than you can make protectionism work in the 21st century capital market. Your post showcases the mirror images of American delusion. On the one hand you are aware that factionalism is your doom. On the other hand, you somehow disbelieve that factionalism is unnatural. You are so completely deracinated and divorced from reality that you could never understand the mind of an ethnically conscious Han in China.”

[Orthodox] “Fighting China is stupid since all the USA has to do is let the U.S. dollar rise and keep letting it rise until China breaks.”

{AK}: If the US dollar rises, China just gets richer.

[Daniel Chieh] “China would probably welcome a war with the US, as it would make an excellent excuse to blame all of the miseries of the next 50 years on some outside power. Since she’ll probably manage a limited victory as well, I’m sure the US won’t be as stupid as to indulge her in such an idea.”

{AK}: Over the next 50 years, national conflicts merely constitute footnotes to more radical events.

Barnabas Reply:February 28th, 2017 at 3:56 pm

“If the USA doesn’t innovate, it falls into the century long management of U.S. decline that is on China’s task list.”
The USA is likely grinding to a halt from a Joseph Tainterian unsustainable complexity. Innovation will only increase complexity and demand for resources. Its not an escape, at best a delaying tactic that increases the potential energy involved in the collapse. Also, innovation is eventually impossible given the diminishing returns of societal complexity.

China would probably welcome a war with the US, as it would make an excellent excuse to blame all of the miseries of the next 50 years on some outside power. Since she’ll probably manage a limited victory as well, I’m sure the US won’t be as stupid as to indulge her in such an idea.

Without a doubt, but consider the possibility for the “enemy on the outside” being the solution for the “enemy on the inside”.

It was the Trotskyist strategy, “winning by losing”, and perhaps to a lesser extent Kerensky’s strategy.

The idea that the problems of the US could come from only 57 counties lends itself to 57 rather creative political solutions.

I’m sure that Vlad Putin and Xi Jinping have their own 57 problems that could lead to 57 rather creative political solutions as well.

Why not secretly agree to “losing” those problems at the hands of the “enemy on the outside” so that you “win” by getting rid of the “enemy on the inside”?

That’s why there’s potentially much more to “chicken games” than the Thanatos Gambit and even the Thanatos Gamble.

After a brief war, the involved parties agree to a long and lasting peace, knowing full well that they took care of each other’s internal problems for at least a hundred years.

Maybe they’ll even be able to get rid of the United Nations by fundamentally redefining the public face of world power, not as a chorus of faces, but of a very small number of faces looking not so much toward each other in trust but instead toward everyone else in distrust …

That’s just an internationalist variation of Jerry Pournelle.
Elimination of all ‘problems’, necessarily leads to the highest of roads, and “There can be only one.” Escalation, automation, and the spirit of distrust, make that singular conclusion inevitable. There’s a good short story by Larry Niven, that illustrates that quite well.

destruction may get the whole setof new ways in 21st century: removed from current time frame, diverted functionally, asynchronouse, substituted. in broad sende any public institution failed to engage with data flow already destroyed, unless dis engagement from data the whole new functional paradigm (fed for example).

This, tweeted by @Outsideness, opens the doors for all truth to enter Xenosystems.

Nick, your threat to delete all of my comments is one with this totalitarian twitter ruthlessness. Very unanglo of you. I suggest you revoke or justify your statement now or I am going to continue pointing out its hypocrisy, even if you do delete my comments.

Almost as if free speech is an power-anarchistic concept. Employ free speech exactly, and only, against what you don’t like, or what threatens you. Anarchism in service to power. Not much of a paradox actually.

Honestly, just leave the guy’s family alone. This is not a particularly complex subject.

admin Reply:February 28th, 2017 at 6:53 am

Thanks. It isn’t.

reactionaryfuture Reply:February 28th, 2017 at 6:36 am

Daniel Chieh Reply:
February 28th, 2017 at 6:29 am

This is a useful mini-exercise in analyzing liberalism, isn’t it?

Employ an abstract ideal (free speech) and then appeal to a common standard of behavior in complete contradiction to the abstract ideal, but still act as if it is an abstract ideal.

admin Reply:February 28th, 2017 at 12:24 pm

You think “freedom of speech” means that if someone walked into your front room and started shouting abuse at your wife, you’d be compelled to stand there, doing nothing, out of ‘principle’? Try not to be utterly retarded.

Cryptogenic Reply:February 28th, 2017 at 12:33 pm

I can’t imagine why baseline free speech, beyond what is necessary to encourage readership and involvement, is presupposed for any private blog — which is like a privately owned public salon. In fact speech is restricted in order to maintain order and product attractiveness (or should be). Whim is perfectly acceptable. How is this difficult?

[I’ve cut this stupid comment out of pathetic Christian pity. I’ve never mentioned your family, and never will, as you well know. If you really want to go this way, I’m triggering the Omega-option. Time’s too short for this BS. Your call. (It will take me 5 minutes to make you never have existed here.) –XS]

Big W, I didn’t respond to your other comment, because I didn’t want to deliver a facile refutation. The historical information was interesting, and I wanted to look that up, relax, think, etc.. So I’ve put it aside, until I can find time to do all that.

Incidentally, that wouldn’t be a ‘democratic’ conception of fairness, that you’re citing at the Dastardly Doyen, would it? lol

Big W (Wagner), wrote a good comment on another post, which I haven’t got round to answering. I would appreciate it if Neoreaction and the ‘All-Trite’ don’t fall into internal bickering, it spoils the aesthetic satisfactions derived from defeating their paltry arguments.

@admin Reply:
February 28th, 2017 at 12:24 pm
“You think “freedom of speech” means that if someone walked into your front room and started shouting abuse at your wife, you’d be compelled to stand there, doing nothing, out of ‘principle’? Try not to be utterly retarded.”

So freedom of speech means freedom of speech apart from this boundary which is already presupposed by the norms of society currently instigated and monitored by the current government.

Its either free, meaning unconstrained in the abstract, or it isn’t and he concept of free speech is nothing more than a mechanism to merely disguise one’s suit of preferences as being natural or neutral.But then, that seems to be a pattern with “anglo” philosophy. Just dress *your* current wants as timeless and you are away.

I’ve been in reactionary societies, where I deeply enjoyed my time. The fundamental basis of such societies is family. You can probably do whatever else you want, but the idea that you’re allowed to dishonor another man’s family never ends well and the idea that you can do so while a guest in the hospitality of his home is wild beyond imagination.

Free speech, except for this circumstances that I don’ t like. In a microcosm, you see behind the veil of liberalism -weaponised abstract ideals for thee, not for me. Pretty much what De Jouvenel exposes.

It’s also what List realised with “Free trade” -apply abstract ideals of, what frankly amounts to primitivism, precisely when, and only when, you already hold the total advantage. The eternal anglo tradition, psychotic.

Rather than this very recent hyperventilating notion of what free speech is – it’s historical roots are not about abstractions but speech that is made without being under duress. Pretty much Without being tortured. Being free to speak. What comes out of ones mouth after one is confirmed as ‘free’ is just plain speech, and thus subject to the social and ethical codes of the day, and cultural specificities of a particular locale.
Unfortunately this seems to be lost on many Americans, who overtaken with their own homogenising self importance seems to have shoved any other considerations aside for the right to speak as loudly and obnoxiously as is humanly possible.
By that point It’s not free speech it’s just histrionic power play.

“My policy is that all comments must be interesting – to people who are neither me, nor the author of the comment. When you comment, please try to keep in mind that your goal is to inform or entertain others who may be reading the comments section. I will decide what is informative or entertaining. The penalty is deletion and there is no appeal.

Please feel free to be as offensive as you want, though, whether to me or to others. One of the great things about the Internet is that it routes packets, not sticks or stones.

(Update: I’ve been blogging for four days and I already hate deleting comments. It makes me feel like Hitler. I may have my own crazed ideology, but I am seriously not cut out for world domination. If it’s obvious to me that you believe your comment is informative or entertaining, I am very unlikely to delete it. However, I’ll respond only to comments that I myself find informative or entertaining. I also discourage drive-by commenting – please comment only if you’re interested in discussion.)”

Complexities bring entities when hardcore be the factor
Physically shattered by the cause of the macrocosm distracter
Fractured by my supernatural forces, face losses
As I break backs like Superman on horses
Word to Jah, ancient warrior like Thor
Spiritual like the Ibis God Thoth
Complex construction by the technician
Will dismantle your collective mind, Enemy of Mankind
With Egyptian, archeological finds
Dwelling in the dungeon of time
Monomaniacal beat seeker
Swarming like locust into your speaker
Examining communications systems with cybernetics

Key notes of my flows will get froze or cryogenics
East Coast domination for the D-U-B masses
Gathering at black masses to gain knowledge of the clashes
Of past rhythmic masters, would end up bending, never-ending like the sky

ANY BEING, whether human or otherwise, can clearly be
envisaged from a large number-it can even be said, an
indefinite number-of viewpoints ; these are very unequal
in importance, but all are equally legitimate in their respective
domains, provided that none of them seeks to encroach
beyond its own proper limits, or, what is still worse, to become
exclusive and end by denying the others.

Adherents to traditional psychology perspectives generally believe that we’re all basically the same (and also, basically good) behind the “wall” of our unconsciously constructed “defenses.” Such folks believe that as the result of our fears – mainly fears about whether we’ll be safe or loved in this potentially hostile world – we unwittingly and reflexively put up barriers to our true selves and present a “front” to others that we think will successfully manipulate the safety and support we seek. This conceptualization actually appears to have relevance and to hold a good deal of truth for some of us (especially those of us I affectionately refer to in my writings as “neurotic”). But traditional personality perspectives have proved inadequate when it comes to understanding the makeup of the more unsavory characters among us. That’s why for years, many in the behavioral science field (myself included) have advocated for a more comprehensive conceptualization of personality.

Over the past several decades, clinicians and researchers have increasingly preferred a multidimensional conceptualization of personality. And while traditional perspectives on personality are still held by many, the multidimensional perspective (the perspective I hold) is slowly but steadily replacing the traditional view because of how well it appears to explain the workings of all kinds (not just “neurotic”) of individuals. I’ll be discussing that perspective in depth in the next article in the series. And I’ll also be discussing the difference between personality and character. We’ll then move into a discussion about when someone’s personality is rightfully considered disordered and also explore the most prevalent kinds of personality/character disturbances and disorders and their defining characteristics. I expect the next few articles should spur considerable discussion, and I will welcome any and all (reasonable) comments and questions.